B-52 Re-engining?

"The Raven" wrote in message


There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs
with 8 engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
pipeline...............

Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't
be obtained.

The F-111s use TF30s. Different engine altogether.

The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most
aircraft and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine
conversions excepted).

Last I knew, the idea was to lease the engines and pay by the hour for
actual run time. Overhauls would be on the owner, probably piggy-backed on
their commerical lines. The theory (no comment on practice) is that the Air
Force can thus spread the costs across the remaining 30-year life of the
planes.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
"The Raven" wrote in message


There must be plenty of TF-33 parts around. You have almost 100 BUFFs
with 8 engines, now consider how many spares need to be in the supply
pipeline...............

Australia is managing with the 35 x F-111's and they make what can't
be obtained.

The F-111s use TF30s. Different engine altogether.

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume that
would be a more economically viable solution.


The cost of changing from one engine type to another, including spares
pipeline, spares, overhaul facilities etc etc are enormous for most
aircraft and take a long time to pay back (Caribou turbine
conversions excepted).

Last I knew, the idea was to lease the engines and pay by the hour for
actual run time. Overhauls would be on the owner, probably piggy-backed
on
their commerical lines.

That's a valid way to do it. Some airforces already use commercial lines for
engine repairs and overhauls.

The theory (no comment on practice) is that the Air
Force can thus spread the costs across the remaining 30-year life of the
planes.

True, but the cost of such changes often represents a huge spike in the
overall life cycle cost with comparitively little time to recover the costs
through lower operating expenses etc.........


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

Tex Houston

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

35x2 engines versus 93x8............plus whatevers in the pipeline.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

Tex Houston wrote in message ...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

Cheers
Graeme

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

Tex Houston wrote in message ...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

The Raven wrote in message ...
I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?

That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as many
people living in it as the US does.

nitpick mode off

Cheers
Graeme

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

The Raven wrote in message ...
I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?

That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as
many
people living in it as the US does.

nitpick mode off

Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
population.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

The Raven wrote in message ...
I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?

That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as
many
people living in it as the US does.

Or even half as many people as California does.

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume that
would be a more economically viable solution.

Actually, that's why they're looking at putting new engines on the BUFF,
machining new parts is becoming increasingly more expensive every year. A few
years ago an "emergency contract" had to be awarded to a company to produce
constant speed drive shafts for our generators. We had used up the ones in the
boneyard and the B-52 CSD on the TF-33 differs slightly from the C-141 and E-3
TF-33. The company that had produced the CSD for the BUFF TF-33 was out of
buisness years earlier. The results were that a *very* expensive contract was
awarded to produce the new CSD shafts.

Every year the B-52 runs into similiar problems and every year the contracts
get greater in number and more expensive.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"